21/01/2016 Newsnight

It's been a long time coming - nine years since he died -

but at last, the full story of the death of Alexander Litvinenko,

and the probable involvement of Vladamir Putin.

The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by

Mr Khrushchev, who was the then head of the FSB, and also by President

Vladimir Putin. The basic story is known -

but the details are remarkable, as are the implications,

we'll be exploring those. Also tonight, a mosquito borne

disease that is affecting thousands It is called Zika and we will hear

how dangerous it is. As a draft report into

Jimmy Savile's crimes at the BBC is leaked,

we ask how he got away with it He fooled Margaret Thatcher and he

fooled Prince Charles and his wife, so it is not surprising that he

fooled the BBC, including me. And from the BBC, to Boston,

a new film about the paedophile priest scandal in

the Catholic church. We've got to show people that nobody

can get away with this, not a priest or a cardinal

or a freaking Pope. the product of "the elegant sense

of humour of the British". Somehow, I doubt that

Judge Robert Owen who wrote The Russian spokesman also said it

would poison relations with Britain and also what didn't,

based on evidence heard in public was probably approved

by President Putin himself. Who murdered the Russian dissident

Alexander Litvinenko and why? Who murdered the Russian dissident

a dangerous attack on British streets. 200 locations across London

were contaminated with radioactive polonium, including stations and

trains. When it comes to Russia's involve blood, the conclusions are

stark, there is a strong probability that the plot to assassinate

Litvinenko was directed by the FSB, Russia's intelligence service and it

is probable that it was approved by none other than the Russian

president Vladimir Putin himself. It was a relief, because you seek

approval but you have tried to say all these years. I can't say it was

not taken serious, but it was every time, "We have no evidence, we have

no proof", but after everything was said in court, especially today, are

the report was released, we can talk about for what happened on a

different level. The public inquiry concluded that Dmitry Kovtun and

Andrei Lugovoi first try to kill him in 2006 after a business meeting in

Mayfair. -- tried. That attempt failed, but when they met him at the

Millennium hotel down the road, they slipped deadly polonium into his cup

of tea and that was a death sentence. I am sure that Andrei

Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun are placed the polonium into the teapot and did

so with the intention of poisoning Mr Litvinenko. The inquiry report

states that the killers were sent by Russia's intelligence service, the

FSB, and were acting under its direction. I have further concluded

that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by

the then head of the FSB and also by President Madame Putin. -- president

Vladimir Putin. For serious charge against a serving head of state is

hard to imagine. -- a more serious charge. Alexander Litvinenko sought

asylum in the UK. Russian friend described how the former FSB agent

tried to use his old knowledge about Russian organised crime to forge a

new career. He ended up investigating the top leadership of

Russia, Vladimir Putin personally coming connection to organised

crime, on behalf the British and Spanish secret services. We can

reveal some details late into this intelligence, and it is very clear

that Alexander Litvinenko's investigations were proving very

dangerous indeed. In November 2006 when he was dying in London, he was

supposed to be in Spain, helping the Spanish authorities investigate this

Russian Mafia boss. His work with Spanish intelligence, which is

confirmed by today's report, was clearly very dangerous, and we

understand this was part of the secret intelligence that underpins

the report's conclusions. Very well-placed source has told

Newsnight that he had video taped evidence against him, that Spanish

prosecutors wanted to use. TRANSLATION: We needed Litvinenko

because he knew them and because he had fought against them and he had

investigated them, and he had investigated him in Russia.

Newsnight obtained this confidential document in Spain, it includes a

transcript to the police interview with former Russian politician and a

Mafia suspect himself. This document reveals how the Spanish, with

Litvinenko's help, were closing in on Russian organised crime, and how

they were chasing alleged links to the Mafia write to the door of

Vladimir Putin, it reads like a spy drama, but these are the real words.

Why do you want to kill me? There is one, I would be quite happy if I was

not here. Who else you said three? The finisher. The killer? He has a

team of killers. Russia is run by people from the KGB of Saint

Petersburg. You have not said anything about Vladimir Putin out of

caution? You do not say anything to avoid problems? Yes, possibly. I can

do that when Vladimir Putin is no longer president. The man they

interviewed died in a mysterious car crash in France shortly after he

spoke to Spanish police. But other more personal attacks against

Vladimir Putin made him a more immediate target for assassination,

I understand, but I have spoken to a source with close knowledge of

inside thinking at MI6 and he tells me that Litvinenko was murdered on

the orders of the Russian state and I'm told that Vladimir Putin must

have known because he crossed two distinct red lines. The smouldering

remains of 64 apartments, torn to shreds by a massive explosion. This

was the first, he alleged that Vladimir Putin had authorised the

secret operation to blow up apartment buildings in Moscow, so he

could blame Chechen terrorists and justify a new war. Russia has always

denied this, but Vladimir Putin was incensed. And this was the second, a

bizarre film of the president kissing a boy publicly, leading

Litvinenko to make wild allegations that he was a paedophile. After the

report's publication today there were angry denials by a Russian

ambassador to London. The length of time that it took to close this case

in this way leads us to believe that it is a whitewash of the British

special services incompetence. What happened was absolutely appalling

and this report confirms what we have always believed, that what is

the last Labour government believed at the time of this dreadful murder,

that it was state-sponsored action, and that is why the last government

took the action, expelling Russian diplomats, issuing arrest warrants

and refusing to cooperate with Russian intelligence agencies, and

those measures continue. What we've added today, rightly, further asset

freezes, writing to the prosecuting authorities to see what more can be

done. Today's report does not confirm the motive for murder, that

is properly covered by secret intelligence and we have had to rely

on our own sources for that. In Russia, the fact that one of the

killers has been given a presidential medal tells you all you

need to know. That a serving head of state has just been implicated in

conspiracy to murder. Litvinenko's coughing has not been ignored. --

coffin. This story is huge news here,

but has also been making waves around the world, and obviously has

implications for the continent of Europe, and the place

of Russia in it. In a moment we'll debate

some of those issues with George Galloway,

leader of the Respect Party. And Alex Goldfarb, one

of Mr Litvinenko's closest friends but first, let's go

to Warsaw and the former Polish foreign minister

Radek Sikorski. You are much closer to Russia and

more aware of Vladimir Putin, are you surprised that he might be

personally involved in something like this, as opposed to his

underlings just getting on with it? In Poland people are not that

surprised, we follow events in Russia very closely, and remember

this is not the first time, there was also the murdering Qatar of the

former president of Chechnya, and the murderers there were caught, as

well. It is disturbing and I hope you understand why we feel so

uncomfortable in such a neighbourhood and why we have been

so insistent on strengthening our major security in our region. It is

an awkward diplomatic problem for Britain as to how to respond to

this. There is not much ammunition left in terms of sanctions against

Russia, and we're also trying to serve other objectives which require

us have a relationship with Russia. Theresa May said some tough words,

what you make of the action that has been proposed on the British side?

I'm not sure on what she said, but it is difficult, yes. We are dealing

with murderous regimes around the world all the time, but in this case

it is different. The murder was perpetrated abroad. This was an act

of contempt. An act of contempt for Britain, and also a mistake by the

murderous, because I believe that in any other country, with the

exception of the United States or France, they probably would have got

away with it. It was the British expertise in handling nuclear

material that allowed you to identify the murderers. But yes,

international implications are huge, because the Litvinenko case goes

back to the origins and the legitimacy of the current

authorities in Russia. This is a major nation state with nuclear

weapons, which is in deep economic crisis, Vladimir Putin is a man who

is determined to hold on to power and with this kind of background,

you can understand why he fears losing a grip on power. What do you

mean by that? Why does he fear losing their grip on power with his

background? -- the grip. If your report is correct, and the British

judges's conclusion is correct, and there is a criminal case to answer,

then of course you are much more reluctant to give up power. Because

he cannot leave the country? For fear of extradition to the UK, is

that the suggestion? I don't know what the UK is going to

do about it, but yes. This report means that you are tempted to use

extreme measures to stay in power. Do you think any European Union

leader, having looked at this, can go now and shake hands with

President Putin in a way which is normal at diplomatic functions? I

think there will be fewer takers of these photo opportunities. And I

think Russia's return to the G8, for example, is probably off the table.

And yes, European leaders will have learnt of the nature of power. It

means that somewhere inside the Russian security establishment, that

there is a cell of what the Russians themselves used to call wet affairs.

It existed under czarist Russia, it existed under the Bolsheviks, and

now, disturbingly, it exists today. Thank you very much.

Here with me, George Galloway, leader of the Respect Party -

and presenter of the show Sputnik on the TV channel Russia Today -

which is funded by the Russian Government -

and Alex Goldfarb, a good friend of Alexander Litvinenko,

who was with him at his death and has worked closely

Good evening to you both. Alex, do you accept at least that the

evidence on Putin per se was entirely substantial, it was the

weakest part of the report? Well, the terms used by Robert probably

relates to the civil litigation standard of proof, which means more

likely than not, as opposed to any, I am sure, which means, beyond

reasonable doubt. Yes, it is circumstantial, but if for example

Marina sued Mr Putin for damages, she would have won. In a UK court,

could have won. George Galloway, you have been giving Putin the benefit

of doubt on lots of things, you have called him man of the year, and

described him as a good thing in previous broadcasts - what is your

reaction to this report and this evidence? You are a presenter on a

state broadcaster, too, so let's not doubt each other's integrity because

of where we work. Carlsberg is probably the best lager in the

world. But perhaps not. This tragedy, of this foul murder, has

been followed by another Whitehall farce. This is the Hutton inquiry

all over again. Secret evidence, closed sessions. You said at the top

of the show that the. But it isn't, because large sections of this

process were closed to the public and to the media. You not accept the

conclusions? I don't, I certainly don't. Because I no longer believe,

and neither do many people in Britain, automatically, what the

security services say. Do you accept the two culprits did it, that they

are the people who put the plutonium in his teeth? I know plutonium to

ten. I was at Yasir Arafat's bedside in France when he died from that

substance is. So I know how foul a murder this was. But this process

has been so riddled with imperfection that it cannot be

relied on. Are you not sure that it was those of two who did it? I think

they are prime suspects, but we have gone much further. And you have gone

even further in this show than Owen, the judge, did. You are basically

arranging a show trial here of the president of a country with which we

have to do business. Apparently careless of what the implications of

it would be. Alex Goldfarb, obviously, there is a deeply

sceptical thread of watched George Galloway is saying, which will not

be untypical of what is being said in Russia. Or in Britain. What is

the most convincing thing you can say to persuade George Galloway? To

begin with, people in Russia are brainwashed by the state-controlled

media so it does not matter what they think. What is important here

is that the evidence against the two suspects are on the website for

everybody to see, and it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I

challenge anybody to look at the evidence and say they are not

guilty. The argument was that nobody in his white mound, -- mind, in the

Russian power structure would dare to authorise an operation like this

without covering his kind. Because Mr Putin personally knew Litvinenko,

and he was personally involved and no bureaucrat would dare to do this.

George Galloway, with this amount of evidence, if it existed against the

British Government, of killing an opponent in a foreign country, would

you be so sceptical of the evidence, do you think? Well, we have been

through Iraq, we have been through the death of Dr David Kelly, the

evidence for which is locked up for 70 years. So we are all sceptical.

You are not, evidently, but large tracts of the British public no

longer believe what Secret servicemen tell Richard Watson for

Newsnight. That is not enough to convince people of such a serious

charge as this. The truth is surely this, that spies and their

associates often end up dead. We can be sceptical and weak can be super

sceptical and we can end up as conspiracy theorists. But you have

not sounded at all sceptical. You have bought this book, line and

sinker. Alex, lots of countries kill people in nonjudicial ways. Why

would Europe or Britain be right to make so much of this killing

compared to other killings in other countries which perhaps we do not

make any fuss over? As far as I am concerned, he was my friend, and

this specific killing, which was perpetrated here using radioactive

weapon, and there are countries and there are countries. When people in

the United States for example kill terrorists with drones, it is one

situation. When Russians kill their dissidents in London, it is another

situation. Comparing a democracy with a dictatorship is not fair. And

what exactly would you like the British to do at this point? What is

the specific thing, what is the sanction? We obviously cannot get

these guys here to put them in jail. I think there is a secondary thing

-- it is a secondary thing, what the British think would do in this

situation. What is important is that Mr Putin has been found guilty in

the court of public opinion. And this is what will stay, and this

will be a major hallmark of Mr Putin. You say the job is done, in a

way. In a way. It is history now, it is going to be come history and Mr

Putin will be judged by the downing of the plane, the invasion of

Ukraine and the murder of Mr Litvinenko. That is the three major

things of his time. Putin's reputation is in the dirt, isn't it,

George Galloway? Well, you have certainly done your best to put it

there. But we need Putin, who is by the way the most popular politician

on the planet, with public opinion ratings of 80%. Like Stalin. Russia

was very popular in the West when a drunkard who was handing over

Russia's wealth to the oligarchs was in power. It is also popular now

that Russia has a strong president which is trying to restore some of

the lost prestige. But we need Russia. We need it to fight a much

bigger threat, which is the threat of Islamist extremism in Syria and

elsewhere. We need Russia for the Iranian file, we need Russia for all

kinds of things. And we must not allow our public interest to be

sacrificed to the Cold War agenda of Alex Goldfarb. Thank you both very

much. In Brazil and parts

of South America, a very nasty outbreak has occurred of a viral

disease called Zika. The disease is spread by mosquitoes

and its biggest danger Babies born of mothers who've

been infected show signs of microcephaly - an abnormally

small head which can cause intellectual disability

and developmental delays. There have been nearly

4,000 of those cases Joining me now, Lara Rodrigues,

professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School

of Tropical Disease, who has just returned

from Pernambuco State in Brazil, where she has been

studying the Zika virus. This is not a new virus? No, it has

been around since 1947 but it has stayed very quietly in the ground.

And then something happened about 10-15 years ago and it started

moving. It has gone to other countries in Africa, it went to

Pakistan, India, Southeast Asia, went to the Pacific Islands, Easter

Island, and now it is in Latin America. The numbers seem shocking

in Latin America at the moment. There has been two outbreaks where a

large proportion of the population got a Zika, but in small countries,

in Polynesia. Brazil is the first country with a large population

which has had an outbreak. Tell us about the symptoms. Not everybody

who gets it has a bad reaction? The first thing is, out of five people

who get infection, only one will have any clinical symptoms. It is a

very silent disease. Those who get ill, they have a rash, very small

fever, it is very, it, and the eyes get very red. And tiredness. These

are essentially the symptoms. Very mild. Not serious. So the serious

part is around pregnant women? Exactly. Pregnant women get it and

they can transmit it to the foetus. And then, the earlier it is, the

virus likes the brain, so they go to the brain and they destroy

structures of the brain. So, as the baby grows, then complete parts of

the brain do not develop at all. So the head is small because there are

bits missing in the brain. It is the brain that is small. And the head is

a small as a result of that. I am this is where it gets quite scary.

Colombia is telling people, wait for the mosquito season to finish. That

is a very big implication. Yes. And we are facing in Brazil a big travel

Trevor Ganz in the big games this year. Is it affecting Rio, has it

moved to the big cities? Yes. In year. Is it affecting Rio, has it

seven or eight months later. Zika is very difficult to diagnose, we

seven or eight months later. Zika is is starting to happen in Sao

seven or eight months later. Zika is yes. I think it is only six estates

in Brazil who do not have cases yet. So yes, it is spreading in the whole

of Brazil. So, a pregnant woman thinking of going to the Olympics,

is it a serious enough risk, especially in the early stages of

pregnancy, to say, don't go? We do not want to be scaremongering but...

I think the best thing is to look at a Foreign Office travel advice. They

would have advised that they update every week just the advice right now

is not to go in places where it is. But of course those things change

every week. We know malarial mosquitoes are in some parts of the

world but not others. These mosquitoes...? Mosquitoes are

already around the globe. South of Mexico, southern Europe, Pakistan,

there is mosquitoes. The Zika virus has not gone there yet, in all of

those countries, but the conditions are there. It is going to be a

global crisis. Thank you very much for joining us.

It's several years now, since we all learned

how on earth did he get away with it?

Well, an inquiry into the BBC's handling of the case is soon to be

published - it hasn't come out yet, but no-one is letting that stop

anyone talking about it, because a draft has been leaked.

Dame Janet Smith's report into Jimmy Savile's behaviour

at the BBC makes more than 60 allegations,

they include rape, assault, and groping.

Victims are children and adults, male and female.

Dame Janet Smith says this leak is not of her final

Nevertheless, it helps us answer the question,

In her draft report, Dame Janet makes clear

that she thinks the BBC's culture in the 70s and 80s

was a particular problem, this was an old-fashioned place.

Executives used to have drinks cabinets in their

offices, that were refilled at licence fee payer's expense,

this was a silo place where people did not

share information from one programme to another.

And it was a deferential, hierarchical corporation,

a place where you did not cause

trouble for people who were more important than you,

and Jimmy Savile, at the height of his powers, was one of the most

Here is Jimmy Savile presenting the Speakeasy

After one recording in London in 1970, Savile

tried to rape a BBC employee who had been in the audience.

The 19-year-old told colleagues and they

But Dame Janet notes that Savile had boasted darkly about sex

and violence in interviews and books.

It was enough that civil servants did

not want to give him an honour in the mid-80s,

but it was not taken seriously in the BBC.

The producer of Jim'll Fix It is waiting for a final version

of Dame Janet's findings before he comments on them,

but he did have this to say today about his former colleague.

Jimmy Savile would tell stories about himself which were self

aggrandising, boastful, and he was a braggart.

I had been in situations with him which I later heard him recount

to other people, and his later recounting was nothing like what had

So when he bragged to me about an offence I had not

witnessed, I did not believe them either.

Not that he ever bragged about anything untoward sexually,

but he would talk vaguely about conquests,

Still, some of Savile's behaviour was in the open.

Dame Janet says the lady in distress here on the left

later complained about being groped on Top Of The Pops and her sexual

The report finds no smoking gun, that anyone senior knew enough,

but it does query why some people who worked with him did not

Jimmy Savile was very good at fooling people,

he fooled the Vatican, he fooled the honours committee,

he fooled Margaret Thatcher, he fooled the heir to the throne

and his wife, and therefore it is not surprising that he fooled

I think now, in retrospect, he was getting a buzz

out of the fact that he was doing these things and fooling everybody

and achieving this great status at the same time.

Jimmy Savile was never formally investigated by the BBC,

but Dame Janet noted that even if he had been,

the BBC's probes of the 70s into allegations of sexual abuse

Derek Chinnery's boss Mr Muggeridge asked him to make

This interview was filmed before his death last year.

He had heard rumours about what Jimmy Savile was up

It was typical old-fashioned BBC management speak,

and Jimmy said it was a load of nonsense.

I rang Douglas and told him he said it was a load of nonsense,

We now know it was on this street where Jimmy Savile had a flat

five minutes walk from the BBC's headquarters, where he committed

some of his worst abuses, we also know many people heard

rumours that this was going on, that he was

bringing young girls back to his home.

So why did they do not do anything about it?

The truth is, many people heard the stories about

Jimmy Savile and they did not really believe them,

they were part of the Jimmy myth, many people thought he was actually

a-sexual and just bragging to hide that fact.

The more people heard these stories, the less they seemed

If Dame Janet's final version is close to

her draft, she will find that this is largely a story about people

too worried to raise concerns, about naive

colleagues who did not see patterns and who disregarded rumours,

and management that did not simply think

enough of the young people to whom it owed a duty of care.

We did ask to speak to someone from the BBC but they declined.

It just so happens, that this leak of a draft of the review

into the Savile case has arrived, just as a film called

Spotlight opens here, looking at a related issue.

It's the story of the journalists on the Boston Globe,

who exposed the scandal of paedophile Catholic

But the numbers clearly indicate that there

Are you telling me that if we run a story with 50 paedophile

You will get into the same catfight that you did on Porter,

which made a lot of noise, but changed things not one bit.

We need to focus on the institution, not the individual priests.

Show me the church manipulated the systems so that these guys

Show me they put those same priests back into parishes time

Show me this was systemic, that it came from the top down.

It's a gripping tale, a real life one, that ignited

the exposure of paedophile priests worldwide.

Now one of the most interesting themes is what one might call

the cover-up - the hard cover-up, of evidence deliberately hidden.

But also the soft cover-up, of people not talking

about what was going on, because they didn't see it,

It resonates with what we know about the BBC and Savile.

Two of the real life journalists involved in the Boston

priest case are in London, and with me here.

Walter Robinson and Mike Rezendes from the Boston Globe -

who both won Pulitzer prizes for their work.

You are Mark Rafa low and you are Michael Keaton in the film, and you?

Fascinated to know what you made about the obstacles you faced and

the time it took to get to the bottom of what was happening in the

Catholic Church and the way it took so long for that to come out here at

the BBC. Was it a soft cover up? We are dealing with a different

situation, the Catholic Church, which was the target of our

investigation, is one of the most secretive organisations in the

world. Penetrating that organisation, which had no documents

and no willingness to talk at all, is obviously a bit different. In the

larger community sense, in Boston, and in every major archdiocese in

the United States, there was too much deference paid to the church,

and when accusations of single incidents were made, everybody

tended to believe the cardinal when he said it is just one priest, just

like it is one little Aryan priest over there, not enough questions

were asked. -- Lutheran priest. We had the cover-up of these priests

who were abusing children, this was about to continue for too long in

the United States, but finally we did crack the code. There is a great

line in the film, the paper it self had been reporting on some of this,

but the line in the film is, we are all scrambling around in the dark

and then someone switches a light on, and then it all gushes out in

one go, is that how it felt? The victims were very quiet, but then

when you reported on it in a big way, many came forward with their

stories? It really did feel that way, when we have the documents that

prove that there was a cover-up in Boston at the highest level, when we

proved that irrefutably and we published the information, in the

last scene of the film you see that we come into the office and the

phones are ringing off the hook, it was as if the dam burst. There were

hundreds of victims suddenly, who were very eager to come forward and

tell us their stories about bad priests and lives that were

destroyed. By reporting that information, that made all the

difference in the world. That rings true of what has happened in this

country, not just with Jimmy Savile, but other cases. They have become

much more talked about than they ever were. What about pointing the

finger of blame? You were able to point at particular individuals who

knew. Were there people that should have known but didn't know, or

wilfully blind? have known but didn't know, or

situation, the Church presents have known but didn't know, or

itself as a paragon of morality, and people

itself as a paragon of morality, and up to. For many people, it was

impossible to up to. For many people, it was

capable of such systemic and deep corruption, it was very difficult to

capable of such systemic and deep believe. I would also say, we now

know that this problem existed nationwide and worldwide, and in

every city in nationwide and worldwide, and in

there were people that nationwide and worldwide, and in

deference to the church never anything about it. The Boston Globe

turned the lights on, as you said. Does it go further than just the

Catholic Church? What came out Does it go further than just the

the Jimmy Savile case and practice at the BBC,

the Jimmy Savile case and practice institutions at the same time that

were all embarrassed in this kind of way, I wonder if you have turned

over something which was wider than just the Catholic Church? In the

Catholic Church, we found in the Boston Archdiocese fully 10% of

priests had abused children over decades, and the church was very

secretive, but there was a culture of secrecy within the church as

well. The priests were quiet about other priests who were abusing

children. But for all of us, it was the children, and how we protect our

children from those who would do these things. The failing in the

United States, and the failing of police and prosecutors, many of whom

knew what was going on, and sometimes they gave the priests, the

failure of people that suspect this kind of activity in any

organisation, who don't report it, they are doing extraordinary

disservice to the children that we all love so much. There is a line in

the film, it takes a village to protect a child, it takes a village

to abuse a child. Thanks for joining us.

Before we go, we've just got time for a bit of light relief.

Down in Bristol, Slapstick - the annual silent comedy festival -

is taking place, and the organisers have unearthed a lost short film

from 1923 starring a very youthful looking Stan Laurel, pre-Hardy.

Here's a taste of the film, which, as you'll see,

features some pretty impressive visual effects.

Good evening, this week started off on a cold and frosty note, it is

ending on a milder note. Friday